3,270,300
edits
ἄλοξ: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "<b class="b3">(\p{L}+)<\/b>" to "$1"
(CSV import) |
m (Text replacement - "<b class="b3">(\p{L}+)<\/b>" to "$1") |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{etym | {{etym | ||
|etymtx=-κος<br />Grammatical information: f.<br />Meaning: [[furrow]] (Trag., Com.).<br />Other forms: Also | |etymtx=-κος<br />Grammatical information: f.<br />Meaning: [[furrow]] (Trag., Com.).<br />Other forms: Also [[αὖλαξ]] (Hes.), [[ὦλκα]], <b class="b3">-ας</b> acc. sg., pl. (Hom.), Dor. [[ὦλαξ]] EM 625, 37and in <b class="b3">ὁμ-ώλακες</b> (A. R. 2, 396). Further [[εὑλάκα]] [[plough]] with the Lacon. fut. inf. [[εὑλαξεῖν]] (Orac. ap. Th. 5, 16); and <b class="b3">αὑλάχα ἡ ὕννις</b> H. and <b class="b3">*ὄλοκες</b> (cod. [[ὀλοκεύς]]) [[αὔλακες]] H.<br />Origin: PG [a word of Pre-Greek origin]<br />Etymology: The relation between these forms was unclear. Solmsen Unt. 258ff. explained [[ὦλκα]] from <b class="b3">*ἄϜολκα</b> (<b class="b3">κατὰ ὦλκα Ν</b> 707 for original <b class="b3">*κατ</b>' [[ἄϜολκα]]); it is strange that this form did not live on. Beside <b class="b3">*ἀ-Ϝολκ-</b> the zero grade would give <b class="b3">*ἀ-Ϝλακ-</b> in [[αὖλαξ]]. The root was supposed in Lith. <b class="b2">velkù</b>, OCS <b class="b2">vlěkǫ</b>, Av. <b class="b2">varǝk-</b> [[draw]]; one could assume <b class="b2">*h₂uelk-</b>. This is tempting, but must not be correct. If the Balto-Slavic words are isolated (there is further only Av. <b class="b2">vǝrǝc-</b>), the verb may be non-IE; also it is rather <b class="b2">*uelkʷ-</b>, which makes the connection with Greek impossible; further there is no trace of the verb in Greek, which has [[ἔλκω]] < <b class="b2">*selk-</b>. [[εὑλάκα]] can no longer be explained from different prothesis, <b class="b3">*ἐ-Ϝλακ-</b>. But [[ἄλοξ]] cannot be explained in this way: metathesis of <b class="b3">*αϜολκ-</b> would give <b class="b3">*αυλοκ-</b>; an after the F had disappeared, metathesis was no longer possible (only contraction to <b class="b3">*ωλκ-</b>). - I see no reason to reject <b class="b3">ὀλοκ-</b>. [[ὦλαξ]] was perhaps taken from a compound, like <b class="b3">ὁμώλακ-</b>, which would give <b class="b3">*ολακ-</b>. - Pisani JF 53, 29 derived [[αὖλαξ]] from [[αὑλός]] and separated it from [[ἄλοξ]] etc., which is improbable. - The variants are strongly reminiscent of substr. words, as Beekes Dev. 40 held (withdrawn ib. 275-7). Variation of prothetic [[ε]]\/[[α]]\/[[ο]]\/[[αυ]]\/[[ευ]] is typical of substr. words, as is [[κ]]\/[[χ]] ([[αὐλάχα]]). So more probably we have to assume a substr. word. The start with the Homeric form was wrong: it is the only form that has no vowel between [[λ]] and [[κ]], and is therefore suspect. If we assume labialised phonemes, like [[lʷ]], a reconstruction <b class="b2">*alʷak-</b> gives all forms: [[αὖλαξ]] (by anticipation of the labial feature; which gives [[ὦλαξ]] by contraction), [[ἄλοξ]] (influence on the second vowel ; <b class="b3">ὀλοκ-</b> on both vowels), interchange [[α]]\/[[ε]] gave <b class="b3">εὐλακ-</b>; see Beekes Pre-Gr., and cf. [[ἀρασχάδες]] etc. Homer might have had <b class="b3">*κατ</b>' <b class="b3">ὠλακ(α</b>), which became unclear during the tradition. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{mdlsj | {{mdlsj | ||